Posted Tuesday 1st July 2008 09:20 GMT
surely this is going to go and on for ebay, they continue to allow fake tat to be sold (can they even stop it?) so more and more companies are going to try and hang them out to dry - fair enough really.
how long before microsoft gets in there for all the suspicious copies of windows/office flying around ebay?
can we hear the sniggers from google hq?
Posted Tuesday 1st July 2008 09:45 GMT
I'm ok with the prevention of fake goods being sold.
What worries me is that French companies have managed to prevent ANYONE selling their product who is not "authorised" by LMVH and of course my corner shop won't be authorised because he can't stump up the dosh to BUY the "authorisation"
Posted Tuesday 1st July 2008 09:57 GMT
The real goods, and a hollow, celebrity-obsessed culture led by the media, are what created the demand for the fakes in the first place.
Posted Tuesday 1st July 2008 10:55 GMT
Simply advertise the goods (the legit stuff obviously) as packaging damaged, no need for authorisation from anyone.
Posted Tuesday 1st July 2008 10:55 GMT
I wonder if Sandisk et al will now sue ebay for all the fake memory cards on there?
Posted Tuesday 1st July 2008 10:55 GMT
Ban the sale of useless designer tat in toto.
Get the LMVH products back to only being sold through overpriced designer only shops staffed by people called Zane and Christiana and squirrelled away in the eye-wateringly expensive bits of major cities where they belong. It won't get 'em the wonga back, but hopefully it'll make enough of a dent in uber-tat sales volumes that the words "Pyhrric victory" can be bandied about over a celebratory glass of Aussie not-champagne-but-very-like-it-and-cheaper-too.
Posted Tuesday 1st July 2008 10:57 GMT
What completely baffles me is that the vast majority of buyers on eBay really do believe that £1400 designer bag they buy for £45 is genuine!
Posted Tuesday 1st July 2008 10:57 GMT
@shaggydoggy
It's not only a question of monney (well, it is eventually...)
LVMH is a luxury brand. And luxuary means it's expensive, not available everywhere, and not mass produced.
Luxury brand wants to closely control the whole supply chain. And if you can get your fancy Louis Vuitton bag in any shop, the brand will be considered cheap and will lose its luxury appeal.
Just a question of image....
You know, Louis Vuitton luggage is not that top quality. It's good quality but nothing more. BUT it has the luxury image which makes it worth the monney.
Nice, huh ?
Paris, beacuse like LV bags, she is not top quality but just luxury and her image is part of the product.
Posted Tuesday 1st July 2008 10:57 GMT
Designer handbags are ridiculous and anyone who buys them from wherever at whatever price is an idiot. That is all.
Isn't it a lovely day today?
Posted Tuesday 1st July 2008 11:20 GMT
"£1400 designer bag they buy for £45 is genuine!"
How much do you want to bet the real deal costs way less than £45 to make?
Posted Tuesday 1st July 2008 11:20 GMT
...is basically a cartel and should be declared illegal. The exception would be for a company that owns the production, distribution and points of sale for the product.
It's this kind of protectionist bull-crap "Oh, you can only sell it we say you can sell it" which inflates prices across Europe and stops free trade. And it's not just "top brands". More down market brands (such as Levis) also engage is such underhanded tactics.
And don't start me on the meeja companies.
Posted Tuesday 1st July 2008 11:51 GMT
In the EU trade is meant to be carried on without restriction.
By saying that Product A can only be sold here and not there and there, is allowing cartels to control the market and of course it ceases to be a 'market' the instant that happens. No amount of corporate-speak exclusivity upper-echelon nonsense makes one jot of difference, it is still a restriction of trade.
So is it ok then for these big shops to get "authorisation" which they have to BUY (it is not 'given') ... I don't think so.
Even high street retailers do that with records, if you want your album on their shelves you have to pay 'for customer face management' WTF
Posted Tuesday 1st July 2008 11:54 GMT
Am I smelling a 'We didn't sell you the product, we licenced you to use the product' licence argeement here?
Posted Tuesday 1st July 2008 12:14 GMT
Weren't Tescos banned from selling certain "designer" brands in the UK?
Posted Tuesday 1st July 2008 12:14 GMT
All I care about is the fact somebody sued Ebay and won -woohahaha! More please! Bring this monopoly down a few more pegs ... and a few more, and a few more ...
Posted Tuesday 1st July 2008 12:14 GMT
... just ban all high priced luxury or desirable items on ebay. Probably the vast majority are fake anyway.
I certainly wouldn't touch a watch or a mobile phone on ebay with a barge pole.
Only been stung once so far, and that was with a gameboy game. Digging around after I sussed it, looked like most of them available "cheap" from far eastern sources were fake. Though I have to admit they are very good quality fakes even if they do (deliberately) misspell Nintendo.
Posted Tuesday 1st July 2008 12:27 GMT
you are a woman,
you are critising designer handbags,
you are clearly lying..
next you'll be saying that jimmy choos are rubbish.
don't try and distract us with all that 'nice weather' chat....
;)
Posted Tuesday 1st July 2008 12:28 GMT
My bag is a fake Anya Hindmarch bag that says 'I'm not an Anya Hindmarch bag'. I am actually quite committed to not lusting after designer handbags.
But perhaps I'm lying to myself. Or am actually a bloke. OMG!!
Posted Tuesday 1st July 2008 12:47 GMT
That if this action is upheld in Europe than it could become impossible to sell anything second hand without the express permission of the manufacturer, distributor and original retailer.
LVMH have simply gone after ebay because it's easier than trying to go after the counterfeiters. If they really believe this will put a long term dent in the counterfeit market then they are more foolish than is really credible
Posted Tuesday 1st July 2008 12:47 GMT
A French court supporting a French company against a US company? There's a surprise. Ebay will appeal to the highest levels in France and lose. They will then appeal to the EU and probably win.
If this were to set a precedent in the EU then we would lose such priveleges as being able to buy a car from where we choose and buy "pattern" parts for cars. Car manufacturers periodically try to ban the selling of "pattern" parts and fail. If this action is upheld in Europe then the long term result will be very bad for all consumers and very good for big business.
Anybody who thinks that this is a good thing simply because they dislike ebay is even more blinkered than the average Daily Mail reader.
Posted Tuesday 1st July 2008 13:04 GMT
1. eBay were held responsible for something - great day!
2. Anyone who isn't exceedingly rich and buys designer stuff is a sad loser who wants to impress everyone else.
3. Fakes are theft
4. Supply chain control is fascism
5. I have my opinions
Posted Tuesday 1st July 2008 13:42 GMT
"Or am actually a bloke. OMG!!"
Well fuck! All that masturbating for *nothing*!
Posted Tuesday 1st July 2008 14:29 GMT
If there is a market the size of eBay, the .gov's are going to expect you regulate it properly.
Its about time eBay caught up with the 18th century.
Mines the frock coat with lace at the sleeve. Sedan Chair please!!
Posted Tuesday 1st July 2008 19:17 GMT
No obligatory references to WWII or mimes blowing kisses to German tanks while waving white hankies and running backwards? I guess the torch has truly been passed to a new generation (for whom these japes mean nothing).
Plus ca change, plus ce n'est pas la meme chose...
Posted Tuesday 1st July 2008 19:17 GMT
All I care about is the fact somebody sued Ebay and won -woohahaha! More please! Bring this monopoly down a few more pegs ... and a few more, and a few more
Yep even though this will screw people over. Yep its great day that eBay lost...
I cant understand some people blind hatred of companies
Posted Wednesday 2nd July 2008 08:39 GMT
Most of the posters here are pleased to see ebay get hit, yet when they read of court action against sites like pirate bay, they are up in arms. I am going to give up reading the reg comments as it is too full of mindless morons these days.
And people that buy the full priced genuine article are mindless too.
Posted Wednesday 2nd July 2008 19:30 GMT
Either eBay does not know how to, or cannot afford to, hire a descent lawyer, or the game was rigged.
Granted, I believe eBay has recently lost their way with changes to the rating system and such that undermines their value as a facilitator of transactions between individuals, but how can any court with a nodding acquaintance of justice not recognize that, in the vast majority of transactions handled by eBay, eBay is neither buyer nor seller.
Would it be reasonable to expect that the owner of a mall be responsible for the authenticity of goods sold by someone who rents retail space in that mall?
As a legal decision, it just seems stunningly wrong.
Posted Tuesday 15th July 2008 13:06 GMT
The fines seem a bit harsh.Are they in line with supposed profits, or merely a punishment for entreprenureal foresight! The old guard don't like their club armchairs moved, do they?
Back to the article
